Relative Risk Reduction May Be Far Below Required Threshold

For starters, Doshi points out that Pfizer did not consistently confirm whether test subjects who showed symptoms of COVID-19 were actually PCR positive. Instead, a large portion of them were simply marked as "suspected COVID-19."

A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing COVID-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% — far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators. ~ Peter Doshi

In all, there were 3,410 cases of "suspected but not confirmed" COVID-19 in the total study population (vaccine group and controls), 1,594 of which occurred in the vaccine group. Only eight cases in the vaccine group were actually confirmed with PCR testing. The problem with this is that the 95% effectiveness rating is based on PCR confirmed cases only. Doshi writes:21

"With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed, this makes it all the more urgent to understand.

A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing COVID-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19% — far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization set by regulators.

Even after removing cases occurring within 7 days of vaccination (409 on Pfizer's vaccine vs. 287 on placebo), which should include the majority of symptoms due to short-term vaccine reactogenicity, vaccine efficacy remains low: 29%."

It's worth noting that, for some reason, far more people in the vaccine group ended up with COVID-19 symptoms within that first week than did those in the placebo group.

Doshi goes on to state that if suspected cases occurred in people who had false negative PCR test results, then the vaccine's efficacy would be lowered even further. He also stresses that "average clinical severity" is not really all that important. What really matters is the "incidence of severe disease that affects hospital admissions."

Unfortunately, and this is really shocking, the trials were not designed to assess whether the vaccines prevent transmission of the infection. Since they don't, "an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent — namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants — seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines' real ability to take the edge off the pandemic," Doshi writes.

Why Were so Many in Vaccine Group Excluded?

Another concern brought forth in Doshi's article is the exclusion of 371 participants from Pfizer's efficacy analysis due to "important protocol deviations on or prior to seven days after Dose 2." Of those, 311 were from the vaccine group while only 60 were in the placebo group.

This marked imbalance is cause for concern. Why were five times as many in the vaccine group excluded from the efficacy analysis than in the placebo group? And what exactly were these "protocol deviations" that caused them to be excluded? This is called stacking the deck so the results can be manipulated in the desired direction to "prove" effectiveness, when it is merely a statistical manipulation.

Confounding Factors

Doshi is also concerned about the confounding role of pain and fever medications. These kinds of medications can mask symptoms, resulting in mild cases of COVID-19 going undetected, especially since all participants were not tested. They can also mask side effects of the vaccine.

The data suggest that in the Pfizer trial, pain and fever medication was taken three to four times more often by vaccine recipients than among those in the placebo group though, and according to Doshi:

"Their use was presumably concentrated in the first week after vaccine use, taken to relieve post-injection local and systemic adverse events. But the cumulative incidence curves suggest a fairly constant rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases over time, with symptom onset dates extending well beyond a week after dosing.

That said, the higher rate of medication use in the vaccine arm provides further reason to worry about unofficial unblinding. Given the vaccines' reactogenicity, it's hard to imagine participants and investigators could not make educated guesses about which group they were in. The primary endpoint in the trials is relatively subjective making unblinding an important concern."

He also questions Pfizer's use of an "adjudication committee" to count COVID-19 cases. "Were they blinded to antibody data and information on patients' symptoms in the first week after vaccination?" he asks.

"What criteria did they employ, and why, with a primary event consisting of a patient-reported outcome (COVID-19 symptoms) and PCR test result, was such a committee even necessary?" Furthermore, the committee consisted not of licensed doctors but of Pfizer staff members, which makes one wonder whether they had the appropriate qualifications to determine whether someone might have COVID-19 or not.

Does Vaccine Work in Those Who Already Had COVID-19?

Lastly, it's important to ascertain how the vaccine works for those who have already had COVID-19, seeing how the vaccine is recommended for everyone, regardless of whether or not you've already recovered from the infection. Here, the data reveal something rather odd. Doshi writes:22

"Individuals with a known history of SARS-CoV-2 infection … were excluded from Moderna's and Pfizer's trials. But still 1,125 (3.0%) and 675 (2.2%) of participants in Pfizer's and Moderna's trials, respectively, were deemed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline …

By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic COVID-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group …) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group …)

But with only around four to 31 reinfections documented globally, how, in trials of tens of thousands, with median follow-up of two months, could there be nine confirmed covid-19 cases among those with SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline?

Is this representative of meaningful vaccine efficacy, as CDC seems to have endorsed? Or could it be something else, like prevention of COVID-19 symptoms, possibly by the vaccine or by the use of medicines which suppress symptoms, and nothing to do with reinfection?"

Vaccine Rollout Coincides With Outbreak

Whether or not the vaccine is helpful or harmful in people who either had COVID-19 before, or are currently positive for SARS-CoV-2 or ill with COVID-19 symptoms, is an important question now that these vaccines are being rolled out.

Case in point: In Auburn, New York, a COVID-19 outbreak began December 21, 2020, in a Cayuga County nursing home.23,24 Before this outbreak, no one in the nursing home had died from COVID-19.

The next day, December 22, they started vaccinating residents and staff. The first death was reported December 29, 2020. Between December 22, 2020, and January 9, 2021, 193 residents (80%) received the vaccine, as did 113 staff members.

As of January 9, 2021, 137 residents had been infected and 24 had died. Forty-seven staff members had also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and one was on life-support. Considering we're seeing cases in which healthy young and middle-aged individuals die within days of receiving the vaccine, it's not inconceivable that the vaccine might have something to do with this dramatic rise in deaths among the elderly. In fact, I'd expect it.

You can rest assured that the public health authorities and media will never report on these observations. Anything that conflicts with vaccine safety and effectiveness will be intentionally and universally buried. This is precisely their modus operandi of the past three decades. If anything, the suppression of the facts will only be amplified.

Vaccine May Trigger More Serious Illness

COVID-19 Vaccines — A Case of False Advertising

Now, if the COVID-19 vaccine really isn’t a vaccine, why are they calling it that? While the CDC provides a definition of “vaccine,” the CDC is not the actual law. It’s an agency empowered by the law, but it does not create law itself. Interestingly enough, it’s more difficult to find a legal definition of “vaccine,” but there have been a few cases. Martin provides the following examples:

So, in summary, “vaccine” and “immunity” are well-defined terms that do not match the end points specified in COVID-19 vaccine trials. The primary end point in these trials is: “Prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 disease.” Is that the same as “immunity”? No, it is not.

There Are More Problems Than One

But there’s another problem. Martin points out that “COVID-19 disease” has been defined as a series of clinical symptoms. Moreover, there’s no causal link between SARS-CoV-2, the virus, and the set of symptoms known as COVID-19.

How is that, you might ask? It’s simple, really. Since a vast majority of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 have no symptoms at all, they’ve not been able to establish a causal link between the virus and the clinical disease.

Here’s yet another problem: The primary end point in the COVID-19 vaccine trials is not an actual vaccine trial end point because, again, vaccine trial end points have to do with immunity and transmission reduction. Neither of those were measured.

What’s more, key secondary end points in Moderna’s trial include “Prevention of severe COVID-19 disease, and prevention of infection by SARS-CoV-2.” However, by its own admission, Moderna did not actually measure infection, stating that it was too “impractical” to do so.

That means there’s no evidence of this gene therapy having an impact on infection, for better or worse. And, if you have no evidence, you cannot fulfill the U.S. Code requirement that states you must have “competent and reliable scientific evidence … substantiating that the claims are true.”

Why Are They Calling Them Vaccines?

As noted by Martin, you cannot have a vaccine that does not meet a single definition of a vaccine. So, again, what would motivate these companies, U.S. health agencies and public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci to lie and claim that these gene therapies are in fact vaccines when, clearly, they are not?

If they actually called it what it is, namely “gene therapy chemotherapy,” most people would — wisely — refuse to take it. Perhaps that’s one reason for their false categorization as vaccines. But there may be other reasons as well.

Here, Martin strays into conjecture, as we have no proof of their intentions. He speculates that the reason they’re calling this experimental gene therapy technology a “vaccine” is because by doing so, they can circumvent liability for damages.

You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws. They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims.’ Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing. ~ David Martin, Ph.D.

As long as the U.S. is under a state of emergency, things like PCR tests and COVID-19 “vaccines” are allowed under emergency use authorization. And as long as the emergency use authorization is in effect, the makers of these experimental gene therapies are not financially liable for any harm that comes from their use.

That is, provided they’re “vaccines.” If these injections are NOT vaccines, then the liability shield falls away, because there is no liability shield for a medical emergency countermeasure that is gene therapy.

So, by maintaining the illusion that COVID-19 is a state of emergency, when in reality it is not, government leaders are providing cover for these gene therapy companies so that they can get immunity from liability.

Under the Cover of ‘Emergency’

As noted by Martin, if state governors were to lift the state of emergency, all of a sudden the use of RT PCR testing would be in violation of 15 U.S. Code FTC Act, as PCR tests are not an approved diagnostic test.

“You cannot diagnose a thing [with something] that cannot diagnose a thing,” Martin says. “That a misrepresentation. That is a deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And they’re liable for deceptive practices.”

Importantly, there’s no waiver of liability under deceptive practices — even under a state of emergency. This would also apply to experimental gene therapies. The only way for these gene therapies to enjoy liability shielding is if they are vaccines developed in response to a public health emergency. There is no such thing as immunity from liability for gene therapies.

Propaganda and Vaccine Rollout Run by Same Company

Martin brings up yet another curious point. The middleman in Operation Warp Speed is a North Carolina defense contractor called ATI. It controls the rollout of the vaccine. But ATI also has another type of contract with the Department of Defense, namely managing propaganda and combating misinformation.

So, the same company in charge of manipulating the media to propagate government propaganda and censor counterviews is the same company in charge of the rollout of “vaccines” that are being unlawfully promoted.

“Listen,” Martin says. “This is a pretty straight-forward situation. You’re being lied to. Your own government is violating its own laws ... They have thrown this book [15 U.S. Code Section 41] on more people than we can count.

They have shut down practitioners around the country, time and time again, for violating what are called ‘deceptive practices in medical claims’ … Guess what? They’re doing exactly that thing.”

Martin urges listeners to forward his video to your state attorney, governor, representatives and anyone else that might be in a position to take affirmative action to address and correct this fraud.

Defense contractors are violating FTC law, and gene therapy companies — not vaccine manufacturers — are conducting experimental trials under deceptive medical practices. They’re making claims of being “vaccines” without clinical proof, and must be held accountable for their deceptive marketing and medical practices.

CDC Owns Coronavirus Patents

On a side note, the CDC appears to be neck-deep in this scam pandemic, and is therefore wholly unsuitable to investigate the side effects of these experimental COVID-19 therapies. As noted by Martin, it’s like having a bank robber investigate its own crime.

Details about this came out in the documentary “Plandemic,” in which Martin explained how the CDC has broken the law — in one way or another — related to its patenting of the 2003 SARS virus. 

Martin is a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications. In 1999, IBM digitized 1 million U.S. patents, which allowed Martin’s company to conduct a review of all these patents, sending him down a proverbial “rabbit trail” of corruption.

In 2003, Asia experienced an outbreak of SARS. Almost immediately, scientists began racing to patent the virus. Ultimately, the CDC nabbed ownership of SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) isolated from humans.

So, the CDC actually owns the entire genetic content of that SARS virus. It’s patented under U.S. patent 7776521. They also own patents for detection methods, and for a kit to measure the virus.

U.S. patent 7279327,5 filed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research, is listed as one of the three inventors, along with Kristopher Curtis and Boyd Yount.

According to Martin, Fauci, Baric and the CDC “are at the hub” of the whole COVID-19 story. “In 2002, coronaviruses were recognized as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill,” Martin says, and “Between 2003 and 2017, they [Fauci, Baric and CDC] controlled 100% of the cash flow to build the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.”

How the CDC Broke the Law

The key take-home message Martin delivers in “Plandemic” is that there’s a distinct problem with the CDC’s patent on SARS-CoV isolated from humans, because, by law, naturally occurring DNA segments are prohibited from being patented.

The law clearly states that such segments are “not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” So, either SARS-CoV was manmade, which would render the patent legal, or it’s natural, thus rendering the patent on it illegal.

However, if the virus was manufactured, then it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. This includes the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George Bush Sr., which states:6

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

So, as noted by Martin in the documentary, regardless of which scenario turns out to be true, the CDC has broken the law one way or another, either by violating biological weapons laws, or by filing an illegal patent. Even more egregious, May 14, 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential.

Now, because the CDC owns the patent on SARS-CoV, it has control over who has the ability to make inquiries into the coronavirus. Unless authorized, you cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it or make tests for it, since they own the entire genome and all the rest.

“By obtaining the patents that restrained anyone from using it, they had the means, the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to a profit,” Martin says.

Dangers of mRNA Gene Therapy